About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it is our responseability to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. as a part of this process we will consider the terms and scope of the joint resolution before us today. i'm concerned this resolution would provide broad authorities, permitting significant expansion of the united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would authorize the president to reescalate united states military involvement in libya, to and potentially beyond the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation when the united states carried out intensive airstrikes on a daily basis. the resolution would on
's why. how many wars are we fighting now? let's name them. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, libya, and soon as mr. leon panetta says, we'll be fighting in iran. we have military operations all over the middle east. why can't we divert some of those funds, cut some of those wars and not cut social security because social security never impacted on our debt. social security was funded all along so why are we cutting social security? >> guest: well, let me just assure you we are not going to cut social security, okay? i think there might be efforts in the house to cut social security, and it might possibly pass, although i certainly know that the cut cap and whatever it's called won't pass because it requires a two-thirds vote and you need 50 democrats to vote for it, and i don't believe we'll have 50 democrats to vote for it, but i guarantee you if any measure passed the house of social security, it would not be taken up in the senate, and if it did, i believe the president would veto it. you know, you're a retiree, paid into social security, all of your working life, and you deserve to conti
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2